The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding of fact only caused the victims to be unable to comply with the promise due to the inevitable discontinuance of business due to the relationship in which the leased office without receiving ampample-, ample-, ample-, or ample-, the purchase of ample-, ample-, ample-,

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly admitted and investigated evidence, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant had a criminal intent to acquire money by deceiving the victims as stated in the judgment below and received money at the time of receiving the delivery. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is rejected.

① On April 23, 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract with M&A and supplied the O university with a prior official home audio appliances. However, N, the representative director of M&A, the Defendant, at the time, was small and medium-scale and small-scale and, at the time, the K office operated by the Defendant in Ulsan, did not produce ampamp, and the article was dried.

The evaluation was conducted.

From the above delivery to the crime of this case, the defendant's sales of ample-, ample-, ample-, etc. is almost rare.

② At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant failed to secure a new customer who will deliver vial, ampample, ample, and ample, etc. at the time of the instant crime, and failed to produce large quantities of products, or to develop relevant technologies

The Defendant appears to have no particular income or property at the time of committing the instant crime.

③ Nevertheless, around September 2013, the Defendant made a false statement with respect to the victim C’s profitability on the off-, ample-, and the possibility of returning the down payment, etc. as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. On November 201, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G about the feasibility, profitability, and possibility of repaying the borrowed amount as stated in the judgment of the lower court.